Quote:
Endoperez said:
If diplomacy, multi-front wars, really successful surprise attack/tactic etc are left out, one of the four would win. Even when diplomacy and all other uncontrollable things are considered, the four nations are in a much better position to win than any other nation, even though there are six smaller nations.
|
Well, yes and no. Yes, there is a definite advantage to having a larger territory and controlling a second capital, but at this point in the game there is also a growing advantage to having more of a long term focus rather than dual-bless-crappy-scales-no-research-expand-as-fast-as-possible. Its easily possible that one of the "smaller" nations has more income and more research than one of the "leaders" in this case. When you throw in the fact that the more aggressive (and nominally leading) players are more likely to have enemies and less likely to have strong alliances (people don't tend to support someone who seems likely to win) this skews it even more. Certainly it's possible to put yourself enough ahead to take the win with quick expansion, but I disagree that it is the only significant factor that decides who wins. Perhaps it is under certain conditions (few players, small maps, etc.), but as I said before that sounds like a fairly boring game, and doesn't sound like the game I'm playing which IS filled with diplomacy, alliances, effective surprise tactics, dark horse comebacks, counters and shifting strategies, and generally a lot of stuff that makes a whole lot of different play styles viable.